BZ
Update to the Debt Star:
Tag Archives: Loss of Freedom
Obama: “I can do whatever I want.”
From TheBlaze.com:
Obama: ‘That’s the Good Thing as a President, I Can Do Whatever I Want’
by Jason Howerton
During a visit with French President Francois Hollande at Monticello in Charlottesville, Va., President Barack Obama reportedly quipped, “That’s the good thing as a president, I can do whatever I want.”
And yes it is, sir. You possess the current Bully Pulpit for the entire nation, such as it is.
Further:
Per the official pool report:
At 4:45 POTUS and president Hollande walked out from a portico and strolled in Front of your pool with Leslie Bowman, president of the Monticello Foundation. Looking at a terrace she said that Jefferson loved to admire the landscape from there. POTUS said that he’d like to take a look and seemed delighted to “break the protocol”.
“That’s the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want” he quipped, walking to the terrace with his guest and Ms. Bowman. Pool now in the mansion as the leaders will come and visit Jefferson’s study.
It’s good to be King.
BZ
A Sunday thought:
BZ
P.S.
My honey and I are away for the Valentine’s Day weekend, hieing about hither and yon into nondisclosed locales. Back to work as per normal on Monday, ready to excoriate Leftists from all angles. Cheers!
A tax attorney: Obama lies.
And this from a person — Cleta Mitchell — who knows from whence she speaks.
A great pull quote:
“I want to make three primary points here. First, the IRS scandal is real. It’s not pretend, it’s real. Number two, the IRS scandal is not just a bunch of bone-headed bureaucrats in some remote office contrary to what the President of the United States told the American People on Sunday. And, number 3, the IRS scandal is not over. It is continuing to this day. And, the Department of Justice Investigation is a sham. It is a nonexistent investigation.”
But imagine this: Attorney Cleta Mitchell speaks logically and cogently from the heart and, simultaneously, whilst doing this, requires not a TelePrompter nor anyone with cue cards. She instantly acquires more veracity and believability than Barack Hussein Obama could ever hope to possess.
Obama lies once again. And lies about lying, particularly when he LIED to the face of Bill O’Reilly. Obama insisted: there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” regarding the IRS and the targeting of Conservative groups:
O’REILLY: You’re saying no corruption (about the IRS)?
OBAMA: No.
O’REILLY: None? No?
OBAMA: There were some — there were some bone-headed decisions…
O’REILLY: Bone-headed decisions…
OBAMA: …out of… out of a local office…
O’REILLY: But no mass corruption?
OBAMA: Not even mass corruption, not even a smidgeon of corruption, I would say.
In this day and age, it is so incredibly easy to prove anyone, any politician, a liar. Proof exists again and again that Obama is a bald-faced liar.
Yet no one seems to care.
But I care about Benghazi. I care about where Obama was on September 11th of 2012. I care about where Hillary Clinton was on September 11th of 2012.
And I care when Obama lies, though too few seem to mirror this concern.
BZ
One very quiet and very important point: “Supreme Court Asked to Clarify What it Means to ‘Bear’ Arms”
From the Wall Street Journal Law Blog:
By Jacob Gershman
You might think the question would be settled by now, but the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to opine on whether the Second Amendment right to “bear” arms for self-defense extends outside the home.
We may soon get an answer. Lyle Denniston, writing for the Constitution Daily, reports about two gun rights cases that may get a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both cases, dealing with restrictions on the ability of minors to possess weapons in public, hinge on the difference between the right to “keep” a gun and a right “bear” one. The National Rifle Association thinks the issue is ripe for Supreme Court review. The justices are expected to discuss the cases next week and may then decide whether to grant review.
And yes, trust me, there is a massive arguable difference between “keep” and “bear.” You may think this is slight, but it may become the Crux of the Biscuit.
The point seems as this:
The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home. But it has refused repeatedly since then to take on the question of whether that right exists also outside the home. If there is a separate right to “bear” a gun (and the Court, in fact, did say in 2008 that the two rights were separate), it has not said what that means.
WITHIN THE HOME. My quite specific emphasis.
Does that right extend outside the home?
And yes, that is a major question that needs reaffirmation.
The NRA says you can’t really ‘bear’ something in the privacy of your home. I submit, when the issue revolves around any firearm: the founders meant to “bear” a firearm in the defense of your investment surrounding and outside your home. Most everything but.
“The explicit guarantee of the right to ‘bear’ arms would mean nothing if it did not protect the right to ‘bear’ arms outside of the home, where the Amendment already guarantees that they may be ‘kept.”
Facts in evidence, assisted with clarity and logic.
Which is why this point is challenged.
BZ
P.S.
You may ask: why is it that I have been focusing on the Second Amendment so much these past few days when there are other, more allegedly immediate topics of interest to discuss with my readers and the nation?
An easy answer: because this nation will explode. There is an astounding erosion of the standard “rule of law” in this nation by the current White House occupant. It is on a death spiral that cannot be recalled, no matter how hard we want it or wish it or “hope” for it. Hope is for idiots. Preparation is for the intelligent. I’m certain you’re quite reading between these lines. I’m simply suggesting.